62

Published:
First published in 1927.
Sent from Geneva to Dresden.
Printed from a copy written out by N. K. Krupskaya.
Source:Lenin
Collected Works,
Progress Publishers,
1974,
Moscow,
Volume 34,
pages 160-163.
Translated: Clemens Dutt
Transcription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:
Lenin Internet Archive
(2005).
You may freely copy, distribute,
display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
Archive” as your source.Other Formats:Text
• README

September 7, 1903

I have just received your letter and hasten to reply. Yes, I see that
you are already well informed and that the sum of the information that makes you
so is tinctured—as well it would be—a definite colour. I understand
also that what has happened is bound to worry you.

But it is one thing to know and another to understand, as you justly write, and
I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to understand what has happened from
the stand point of “the effect of a nervous breakdown”. A nervous
breakdown could only give rise to sharp animosity, fury and a reckless attitude
to results, but the results them selves are utterly inescapable and their advent
has long been merely a question of time.

“Riffraff” and “praetorians”—you say. That is not the
case. The political alignment was im Grossen und Ganzen as follows:
five Bundists, three Rabocheye Dyelo-ists, four Yuzhny
Rabochy-ists, six from the “Marsh” or indecisives, nine
Iskrists of the soft line (or Zickzackkurs) and twenty-four Iskrists of
the firm line; these are voting members, and, of course, approximate. There have
been cases when everything was mixed up differently, but à vol
d’oiseau this, on the whole, was how the groups worked out. The biggest
shuffle (over equality of languages), when many Iskrists vacillated, left us
with not less than 23 (out of a total of 33 Iskrists) and even among these 23
the “Martovites” were in a minority. And do you know the result of
the vote at the meeting of the 16? Sixteen members of the Iskra
organisation, and not “riffraff” nor “praetorians”? Do
you know that here, too, Martov was in the minority both on the
question of the person who had been the apple of discord
and on the question of lists?

The minority of Iskrists of the soft or zigzag line defeated the majority (on
the question of the Rules, and more than once) by a coalition of the Bund+the
Marsh+the Yuzhny Rabochy-ists. And when the Bund and Rabocheye
Dyelo withdrew, the majority of the Iskrists had their own back. Voilà
tout. And not a single person has any doubt that, if the Bund had not
withdrawn, Martov would have beaten us over the central bodies. And to make such
a finale a reason for resentment, offence, a split in the Party! It is
madness. The story goes that the “praetorians” ousted people because
of a slanderous accusation of opportunism, that they cast
slurs on and removed active people, etc. That is mere idle talk, the
fruit of an imaginary grievance, rien de plus. No one, absolutely no
one had “slurs” cast upon him or was removed, prevented from taking
part in the work. Some one or other was merely removed from the central
body—is that a matter for offence? Should the Party be torn apart for
that? Should a theory of hypercentralism be constructed on that account? Should
there be talk of rule by a rod of iron, etc., on that account? Never for a
moment, have I doubted or been capable of doubting that a trio of editors is the
sole genuinely business-like trio, which does not break up anything,
but adapts the old “family” collegium to the role of someone in an
official capacity. It is precisely the family character of the Six that
has been tormenting us all these three years, as you know only too
well, and from the moment Iskra became the Party and the Party
became Iskra, we had to, were obliged to, break with
the Six and its family character. It was for this reason that already prior to
the Congress I declared that I was, going to demand freedom of election of the
editorial board—or the trio—which is the sole basis also for
sensible co-optation.

The break with the “family character” was absolutely essential and I
am confident the Six would have peacefully accepted this trio but for the
accompanying squabbles over 1 and over the C.C. It is only these
squabbles that in their eyes painted the trio in this “horrible”,
absolutely false hue. There is nothing “horrible” in it at all, and
it was essential to impose a restraint on the Zickzackkurs, and the
majority of the Iskrists (both at the Congress and within the Iskra
organisation) understood this perfectly well.

No, I repeat, the finale is not an “unforeseen calamity”, it is not
a “division of the whole”. That is untrue. It is untrue that one can
curse the day of “promotion”—or all our old work would remain for
ever a torment of Tantalus. And in the Party, on its formal basis, With
subordination of everything to the
Rules[1]
(over which we quarrelled desperately not without reason, quarrelled over every trifle with Martov, who
beat us on this point), in such a Party the old family editorial board
(not once in three years—this is a fact—did it meet with
the full number of six members) was impossible, the more so because the
non-Iskrists entered the Party in a bunch by right, on formal grounds. And this
called for a firm and consistent line, and not a zig zag policy. There is no
returning to the old, and only a disordered imagination can picture Martov being
led to the slaughter instead of to joint work with comrades, of whom each has
his shade of the political line. Actually, I would add, this trio,
throughout these three years, in 99 cases out of a hundred, had always
been the decisive, politically decisive(and not literary) central body.

Now, after Martov beat the majority of the Iskrists by alliance with
the Bund and made every preparation for beating them by this alliance
on the question of the central bodies as well, I find “their”
complaints about riffraff and praetorians, their laments about the
“crystal” of Iskra’s editorial board ludicrous. He
beat them by an alliance, I say, and not by a deal; I would not think of
accusing them of a deal with the Marsh and the Bund, nothing of the
sort. When “they” talk about “defamatory rumours” (of
being allies of the Bundists) being spread against them, “they” are
repeating their usual mistake of confusing the personal and the political. A
deal would be personally ugly. The alliance did not depend on their
will, their alliance was caused by their mistake; it was not they who went
with the Bund+the Marsh, but the Bund+the+Marsh+Yuzhny Rabochy,
etc., who followed them, having grasped at once which of the Iskrists had to be
supported from the anti Iskrist standpoint. The Bund+the Marsh, etc., only
revealed politically Martov’s organisational and tactical
mistake.

For one who knows all the facts of the Congress and especially the distribution
of Iskrist votes (both at the Congress and in the underground organisation of
Iskra) there cannot be any doubt that there is no going back. The
Iskrists have parted company, but Iskra could not exist apart
from the Iskrists. And, I repeat, among the Iskrists Martov was
definitely in a minority, and a split in the Party (towards which
Martov is fatally heading, more and more each day) will be a revolt of
the minority, a minority that is in the wrong both juridically and still
more in all essentials.

We “cast slurs” neither on Martov nor on anyone else for their
mistake, but call all of them to the work.

As regards the “material means” of which you speak, we are hard up
just now, it goes without saying, and the
Californian[3] sources have
gone up in smoke. But, if it came to that, we could endure even extreme need, so
long as all the work of many years is not allowed to be wrecked through
dissatisfaction with the composition of the central bodies (for objectively
“their” dissatisfaction amounts only to this).

“Must the bucket too be
shared?”[4] you ask. I could hardly answer
this question, for I make no claim to impartiality in
“sharing”, and you do not need an answer that is not impartial. I am
convinced that there are no “fractional parts”, but there is a
senseless attempt to break to pieces, smash and scatter the whole (to
build a new hearth, as you put it) owing to defeat on a single question
where the defeated Iskrists were utterly wrong.

Notes

[1]That is why “arrangements among ourselves” are impossiblenow,
absolutely impossible, both judicially and morally.
—Lenin

[2]Kalmykova, Alexandra Mikhailovna (1849-1926)—progressive
public worker; ran a bookstore in 1889-1902, which served as a rendezvous
for Social-Democrats; rendered financial aid to Iskra
and Zarya. In 1902 she was deported abroad for three years; after
the split in the Party she gave financial aid to the Bolsheviks.

[3]By “Californian” sources Lenin is apparently referring to the
financial aid which Iskra had been regularly receiving. These
sources have not been ascertained.